Worship of the Sacrament of the Altar

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Hi :wave:...I'm not sure whether "Sacrament of the Altar" is a name that Lutherans give to the Bread and Wine used in the commemoration of the Lord's Supper, so I apologise if it's not. I heard it somewhere else on this board, so I hope it's OK.

I've heard that Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation" i.e. that the Bread and Wine become literally the Body and Blood of Jesus, whilst remaining at the same time Bread and Wine. Is this true? Do Lutherans worship the consecrated Bread and Wine then as it has become Christ? I apologise if I'm way off here.

Thanks guys! ;)

Peace to you from your brother in Christ,
Robbie

[CrossWiseMag]

We don't actually believe 'consubstantiation,' either, though your explanation of what we believe is very close to the truth of Scripture. We believe that we are eating and drinking bread and wine -- and also eating and drinking Christ's body and blood. The latter is obvious -- Christ says "this is my body." The former is linked to Paul's words to the church at Corinth, in which he referred to the post-consecration element as "bread." So it not only is "body," but it also is "bread."

See, too, Irenaeus, in his work, "Against Heresies," for an indication that transubstantiation is relatively new to the church. In it, Irenaeus notes that there is both an "earthly" and a "heavenly" part to the elements. That is essentially the Lutheran understanding, along with Scripture. Transubstantiation came later, as Aristotelians attempted to logically explain the mystery.

We do not "worship" the consecrated bread and wine. Our adoration of the sacrament is limited to the usage prescribed by our Lord -- "take eat," and "take drink." When we eat and drink, Christ's body and blood is surely present. On the other hand, the promise of Christ's "Real Presence" is not given to the elements outside of that eating and drinking. Practices like parading the consecrated elements through the streets for public adoration go beyond the scope of Christ's promises that His body and blood and forgiveness of sins is tied to the eating and drinking of them.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Thanks! I thought that what you described actually is the same as "consubstantiation"?

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) defines it as "The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist."

Now as to whether or not it was "proposed by Martin Luther" or has eariler dates I'm not going to debate as it would not be appropriate in this forum.

Thanks again. :thumbsup: ;) :)

In the love of Jesus Christ,
Robbie

[Protoevangel]

Thanks! I thought that what you described actually is the same as "consubstantiation"?

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) defines it as "The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist."That would be a correct definition. Often, some attach deeper meaning to consubstantiation, including who/what/when/where/how/why. These are why many Lutherans shy away from the word. Lutherans do not attempt to define the process beyone what is stated explicitly in the Word of God.

Now as to whether or not it was "proposed by Martin Luther" or has eariler dates I'm not going to debate as it would not be appropriate in this forum.

Thanks again. :thumbsup: ;) :)

In the love of Jesus Christ,
RobbieHave a look around Robbie, we invite and welcome debate. Just keep it respectful of Lutheran doctrine and we'll happily debate you all day. :D

[revjpw]

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/) defines it as "The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist."


That is actually an inaccurate definition. It was not "proposed by Martin Luther." Lutherans do not teach "consubstantiation," which means a mixing of Christ's body and bread and Christ's blood and wine.
We teach "Real Presence through Sacramental Union" where Christ's body is "in, with, and under" the bread and His blood is "in, with, and under" the wine. This is the language we use to define the Sacrament. We don't attempt to explain it any further because Scripture does not explain it any further.

[revjpw]

We don't actually believe 'consubstantiation,' either, though your explanation of what we believe is very close to the truth of Scripture. We believe that we are eating and drinking bread and wine -- and also eating and drinking Christ's body and blood. The latter is obvious -- Christ says "this is my body." The former is linked to Paul's words to the church at Corinth, in which he referred to the post-consecration element as "bread." So it not only is "body," but it also is "bread."

See, too, Irenaeus, in his work, "Against Heresies," for an indication that transubstantiation is relatively new to the church. In it, Irenaeus notes that there is both an "earthly" and a "heavenly" part to the elements. That is essentially the Lutheran understanding, along with Scripture. Transubstantiation came later, as Aristotelians attempted to logically explain the mystery.

We do not "worship" the consecrated bread and wine. Our adoration of the sacrament is limited to the usage prescribed by our Lord -- "take eat," and "take drink." When we eat and drink, Christ's body and blood is surely present. On the other hand, the promise of Christ's "Real Presence" is not given to the elements outside of that eating and drinking. Practices like parading the consecrated elements through the streets for public adoration go beyond the scope of Christ's promises that His body and blood and forgiveness of sins is tied to the eating and drinking of them.

CWM's post here gives a very good explanation of the Sacrament.
I would only add that although Christ's Real Presence is not outside the eating and drinking (Christ's body and blood are truly present at some point between the consecration [Word's of Institution] and the reception by the communicant), we cannot say that at any time after the consecration of the elements does Christ's body and blood cease to be present. This is why all reverence is due in the handling of any elements left over following the service, such as the proper storage of consecrated bread and wine by keeping them separated from unconsecrated elements.

[revjpw]

Now as to whether or not it was "proposed by Martin Luther" or has eariler dates I'm not going to debate as it would not be appropriate in this forum.

The only thing inappropriate for this Lutheran forum is quoting from the Lutheran Confessions. :scratch:

[RedneckAnglican]

That is actually an inaccurate definition. It was not "proposed by Martin Luther." Lutherans do not teach "consubstantiation," which means a mixing of Christ's body and bread and Christ's blood and wine.
We teach "Sacramental Union" where Christ's body is "in, with, and under" the bread and His blood is "in, with, and under" the wine. This is the language we use to define the Sacrament. We don't attempt to explain it any further because Scripture does not explain it any further.

forgive me for being ignorent of all of this stuff...but is it something like "consubstantiation" being 50% body 50% bread as opposed to "sacramental Union" being totally Christ's body as well as totally bread?...

[revjpw]

forgive me for being ignorent of all of this stuff...but is it something like "consubstantiation" being 50% body 50% bread as opposed to "sacramental Union" being totally Christ's body as well as totally bread?...

"Sacramental Union" merely means that both bread and Christ's true body is present in the Sacrament.
It could probably be equated to the two natures of Christ. He is 100% God and 100% human and not 50/50.

[RedneckAnglican]

wow...i might actually be getting this Lutheran thing down...this is cool...

[Onesimus85]

I have a close friend who is Lutheran and he does not believe in the literal taking of the Body and blodd of Christ but instead sees them as symbols. I have heard that the United Methodist and the Lutherans are not to far in their beliefs about communion. So far I have found this to be true.

[revjpw]

I have a close friend who is Lutheran and he does not believe in the literal taking of the Body and blodd of Christ but instead sees them as symbols. I have heard that the United Methodist and the Lutherans are not to far in their beliefs about communion. So far I have found this to be true.

Then your friend is not a Lutheran because Lutherans certainly DO believe in the Realk Presence. Those who do not recognize the body and blood in the Sacrament are committing a sin, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29.

Lutherans and Methodists are miles apart in their teaching of Communion. Whoever told you that they were close is sorely mistaken.

[Protoevangel]

I just looked it up in the Christian Cyclopedia on the LCMS website, here is the definition of Consubstantiation (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CONSUBSTANTIATION):
View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.

Also, under the definition of Grace, Means of. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=g&word=GRACE.MEANSOF), I found:
Reul Presence. The words of institution, “Take, eat; this is My body,” clearly state: “With this bread I give you My body.” So these words are explained 1 Co 10:16. There is no transubstantiation* of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor any consubstantiation* or impanation.* In, with, and under the bread and wine a communicant, also an unbelieving communicant (1 Co 11:27–29), receives Christ's true body, given into death, and His true blood, shed for sins. This is the point of controversy bet. Luths. and Ref. The question is not whether Christ is present acc. to His divine nature in the Sacrament, or whether the soul by faith is united with Christ (spiritual eating and drinking), or whether the believing communicant receives the merits of Christ's shed blood by faith (all of which is acknowledged as true by both Luths. and Ref.). In Luth. terminology the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine is called sacramental* eating and drinking. The Ref. deny that the words of instit. should be taken in a literal sense, or that in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ are really present (Real Presence, a mystery). The Ref. teach instead the real absence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament by resorting to a figurative, or symbolical, interpretation. Karlstadt* sought the figure in “this,” H. Zwingli* in “is” (making “is” mean “represents”), J. Calvin* and others in “body” (making “body” mean “the sign of My body”), and others (e.g., W. Bucanus,* B. Keckermann,* and H. Zanchi*) in the entire statement. The multifarious attempts to pervert the proper sense of the words are but so many evidences of the persistent refusal of the words to yield to perversion.

Thanks rev for calling me on my incorrect reply! :thumbsup: The day is never a total loss when you learn something new!

[Onesimus85]

Then your friend is not a Lutheran because Lutherans certainly DO believe in the Realk Presence. Those who do not recognize the body and blood in the Sacrament are committing a sin, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29.

Lutherans and Methodists are miles apart in their teaching of Communion. Whoever told you that they were close is sorely mistaken.

Forgive me, I am not Lutheran, however I do believe in the presence of Chirst in the taking of the bread and the wine. I was not saying that Lutherans and UMs agree on everything, (although I tend to be much more conservative than the average UM). My information came from an article posted saying that the Lutheran Church was looking at sharing communion with the UMC. I suppose I was fed the wrong information and apologize if I was off base in my assumption.

I assure you that my friend is Lutheran, and he also believes in the presence of Chirst in the taking of the bread and the wine. He knows more about the Lutherans than I could imagine.

I do not partake in communion merely for the food or wine. I know that it is sacred and that it is not to be taken lightly. Paul tells us to "examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup," (1 Cor. 11:28b) so that we are not doing it for the wrong reasons. I do examine myself and make sure that I remember why I am partaking in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup. I do not want to take part just because I am hungry or because everyone else does it, I recognize the significance and the sacredness of Holy Communion. I take part in communion in the rememberance of our risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

I apologize if I offended anyone. I have learned a great deal! Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with someone as ignorant as I. :)

[KagomeShuko]

Ah, what would I do without you guys? I had always been taught that the real presence=consubstantiation.

I believe in real presence and not consubstantiation from what I'm reading here. . .so I'm still Lutheran :)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[revjpw]

Forgive me, I am not Lutheran, however I do believe in the presence of Chirst in the taking of the bread and the wine. I was not saying that Lutherans and UMs agree on everything, (although I tend to be much more conservative than the average UM). My information came from an article posted saying that the Lutheran Church was looking at sharing communion with the UMC. I suppose I was fed the wrong information and apologize if I was off base in my assumption.

I assure you that my friend is Lutheran, and he also believes in the presence of Chirst in the taking of the bread and the wine. He knows more about the Lutherans than I could imagine.

I do not partake in communion merely for the food or wine. I know that it is sacred and that it is not to be taken lightly. Paul tells us to "examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking from the cup," (1 Cor. 11:28b) so that we are not doing it for the wrong reasons. I do examine myself and make sure that I remember why I am partaking in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup. I do not want to take part just because I am hungry or because everyone else does it, I recognize the significance and the sacredness of Holy Communion. I take part in communion in the rememberance of our risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

I apologize if I offended anyone. I have learned a great deal! Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with someone as ignorant as I. :)

I do not beleive anyone here took offense at your post. I was merely attempting to correct what you stated about the teachings of UMC and Lutherans. You were simply communicating from your perspective of having been taught in the Methodist Church. :wave: Nothing wrong with asking questions.

As for a Lutheran and Methodist sharing of communion, be advised that not all Lutherans are alike. There are different Lutheran church bodies in the US (LCMS, ELCA, WELS, etc.) just as their are different Methodist church bodies (United Methodist Church, Free Methodist Church, Methodist-Episcopal, etc.).
If there is a proposed communion between Lutherans and the UMC, it would be the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). They have a completely different teaching and emphasis on communion than do the other Lutheran churches (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, etc.). They have entered into altar/pulpit fellowship (communion) with other church bodies who do not hold to the Biblical teaching of the Real Presence of Christ's true body and blood in the Sacrament (Presbyterian Church USA, Reformed Church in America, United Church of Christ).